Family Beach House- DS and Friends Using it for Summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kid is living there. There are expenses to the house. Yes, he should pay rent. How is this a question? Any decent parent would offer the other parent some money to cover expenses. If the other bedrooms are full or OP is using them then what they are offering is ok.

The kid didn't answer a "renter wanted" ad; he was invited to stay by his friend. Do your kids invite friends to places and then tell them they have to pay for the experience? Hopefully not.

We have a beach house, as do many of our friends, and our kids' friends often stay for weeks at a time during the summer. Not a one of us would ever consider charging them rent, because that's not how decent people treat their children's friends. And yes, they all offer to contribute money, which we decline, or they offer to cook dinner frequently or help with maintenance, which we accept. There is no reason to think that the friend and his family wouldn't have done something similar, but that's very different from being told, after he accepted the invitation, that they'll need to pay.

I'm particularly puzzled by the bit where OP says her in-laws want the guest to pay this money as a way to offset any damage to the property. What if OP's kid or the nephews or their friends end up causing damage and the kid is blameless? Hopefully this lease for the shed rental is going to cover that scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kid is living there. There are expenses to the house. Yes, he should pay rent. How is this a question? Any decent parent would offer the other parent some money to cover expenses. If the other bedrooms are full or OP is using them then what they are offering is ok.

The kid didn't answer a "renter wanted" ad; he was invited to stay by his friend. Do your kids invite friends to places and then tell them they have to pay for the experience? Hopefully not.

We have a beach house, as do many of our friends, and our kids' friends often stay for weeks at a time during the summer. Not a one of us would ever consider charging them rent, because that's not how decent people treat their children's friends. And yes, they all offer to contribute money, which we decline, or they offer to cook dinner frequently or help with maintenance, which we accept. There is no reason to think that the friend and his family wouldn't have done something similar, but that's very different from being told, after he accepted the invitation, that they'll need to pay.

I'm particularly puzzled by the bit where OP says her in-laws want the guest to pay this money as a way to offset any damage to the property. What if OP's kid or the nephews or their friends end up causing damage and the kid is blameless? Hopefully this lease for the shed rental is going to cover that scenario.

I think we all know that anything that goes wrong at the house will be the shed kid's fault, reality notwithstanding.

[Anonymous]

OP I don't see this answered by page 3.

Did the friend ask to come or was the friend invited?

[Anonymous]

DS should not have offered without asking permission. It's ok to say no to the friend staying there.

If the friend doesn't want to pay the rent, it's only February, and there's plenty of time to find something else.

But yes, if his mother is drama I'd move away from this idea because it sounds like a mess in the making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember when I was in college the parents of my friends would do such sweet things for us like take us out to dinner, send care packages, and let us stay at their homes for job interviews and spring break. I can’t wait until my kids are old enough for me to pay it forward. Too bad I don’t own any acreage sheds.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So, OP, which time were you lying and which is the truth

Umm, not OP but those two quotes aren't even remotely mutually exclusive. The boys could have one conversation and the adults have their own

1- The kid was offered the deal by my son. He shared it with his parents and the mom engaged me.
2- So, I brought this up to the chosen boy's mom- who I'm very friendly with but not close close.

im with PP, she contradicts herself

I don't see it. Boy was told. His mom contacted OP. OP started the conversation. Am I missing something?

To the PP who created bullets 1&2. What is your point exactly? Are you pushing for OP to offer free lodging? But this is not her sole property, the BILs were in on the decision to charge rent. Are you saying that the first offer did not say anything about the rent and OP does not have the right to clarify this to the other mom? That OP does not have the right to change her mind after the other mom badmouthed her? I don't get what you are insisting. I understand that there may have been miscommunication but it has been clarified since. The other mom may have the right to get annoyed but it was wrong of her to gossip. This is not OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am trying to decide how hard up I would have to be to charge my kid’s friend money to stay in a literal shack. And the answer is destitute and needing money for food. So tacky.

Guaranteed this is the same PP over and over and over again...and very likely the bitch mother herself who in the same message calls the home owners assholes and then says her son still wants the spot, OK? What a piece of work. If she can't understand that this house, which is owned by more than OP's nuclear family, requires various people to be in agreement then she's an entitled twit.

Very likely? Snort.

[Anonymous]

#justiceforshedkid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you asked the second kid, it was in the same breathe that you set the rental terms. Was that true for the initial invite? Or did you invite first and then tack on rent later? Is it was a bait and switch, then I think you carry some blame for this situation.

+1 Saying they "accepted immediately" is comparing apples to oranges. Come back in three weeks and tell that kid's mom you've decided to triple the rent and see how she reacts; that's more in line with what happened to the first mom.

Also, why in the world is OP the point person on any of this?

OP here.

100% false.

My son asked if he could bring a friend. We spoke with the in laws and they gave the OK. We are in DC, in laws are in NC. Their kids will likley have multiple visitors over the summer while mine wont just because of distance. Hence the reason he was permitted to bring someone. We and the in laws together agreed on the $1000 to cover the utilities and provide a sense of responsiniolity. Our sons aretasked with repairs an maintennace. The kid was offered the deal by my son. He shared it with his parents and the mom engaged me.

The lease was in place simply for protection in case the kid did something horrible. Two of the BILs are attorneys and would draw the lease so that it was enforceable. I'm not going to engage with anonymous strangers on the Internet about whether a hypothetical lease that no one has seen is valid. Only a fool would do that.

There was no bait and switch and I can't see where you'd even get that idea from this thread.

Putting aside the interesting question of what this lease is going to look like, this situation still seems completely bizarre. Why not just have all four boys be responsible for maintenance? Why does the kid living in the shed end up being the only one who needs to pay? And will your nephews' friends and visitors be charged a daily amount for their stay?

You seriously cant understand why a non owner should pay, while the owners don't? The owners have already paid. Its called they bought the house!

And spending three months living in the house is not the same as coming down for a weekend. If the weekend visitors were raised right, they'll come with some sort of compensation ie paying for the pizzas and beer. I know my son would. But I doubt you raised your child properly because you apparently think the one kid is entitled to the home as if his family owns it.

Thanks for your concern, but I not only raised my kids properly, I was properly raised myself, which means I would never allow my kid to invite a friend to our beach house, and then stick the kid in a shed and tell him he owes rent. If he is my son's friend, he would be treated as my son is for the summer. If I thought he was in any way irresponsible such that I needed a monetary bond in place to cover potential damages, he would not be allowed to stay at all.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am trying to decide how hard up I would have to be to charge my kid’s friend money to stay in a literal shack. And the answer is destitute and needing money for food. So tacky.

Guaranteed this is the same PP over and over and over again...and very likely the bitch mother herself who in the same message calls the home owners assholes and then says her son still wants the spot, OK? What a piece of work. If she can't understand that this house, which is owned by more than OP's nuclear family, requires various people to be in agreement then she's an entitled twit.

Very likely? Snort.

The other PP is nuts!

[Anonymous]

Send that boy to the woodshed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you asked the second kid, it was in the same breathe that you set the rental terms. Was that true for the initial invite? Or did you invite first and then tack on rent later? Is it was a bait and switch, then I think you carry some blame for this situation.

+1 Saying they "accepted immediately" is comparing apples to oranges. Come back in three weeks and tell that kid's mom you've decided to triple the rent and see how she reacts; that's more in line with what happened to the first mom.

Also, why in the world is OP the point person on any of this?

OP here.

100% false.

My son asked if he could bring a friend. We spoke with the in laws and they gave the OK. We are in DC, in laws are in NC. Their kids will likley have multiple visitors over the summer while mine wont just because of distance. Hence the reason he was permitted to bring someone. We and the in laws together agreed on the $1000 to cover the utilities and provide a sense of responsiniolity. Our sons aretasked with repairs an maintennace. The kid was offered the deal by my son. He shared it with his parents and the mom engaged me.

The lease was in place simply for protection in case the kid did something horrible. Two of the BILs are attorneys and would draw the lease so that it was enforceable. I'm not going to engage with anonymous strangers on the Internet about whether a hypothetical lease that no one has seen is valid. Only a fool would do that.

There was no bait and switch and I can't see where you'd even get that idea from this thread.

Putting aside the interesting question of what this lease is going to look like, this situation still seems completely bizarre. Why not just have all four boys be responsible for maintenance? Why does the kid living in the shed end up being the only one who needs to pay? And will your nephews' friends and visitors be charged a daily amount for their stay?

You seriously cant understand why a non owner should pay, while the owners don't? The owners have already paid. Its called they bought the house!

And spending three months living in the house is not the same as coming down for a weekend. If the weekend visitors were raised right, they'll come with some sort of compensation ie paying for the pizzas and beer. I know my son would. But I doubt you raised your child properly because you apparently think the one kid is entitled to the home as if his family owns it.

Thanks for your concern, but I not only raised my kids properly, I was properly raised myself, which means I would never allow my kid to invite a friend to our beach house, and then stick the kid in a shed and tell him he owes rent. If he is my son's friend, he would be treated as my son is for the summer. If I thought he was in any way irresponsible such that I needed a monetary bond in place to cover potential damages, he would not be allowed to stay at all.

+10000

So you're saying your son is accident proof?

Wow. He's a miracle. I can't think of one person I've ever known(let alone a 20 yo with a not yet fully formed brain) who isn't capable of accidentally knocking over a 60" TV and breaking it. Or accidentally leaving the fridge door open over night and burning out the compressor, or spilling a can of paint in the garage or tripping and pulling a towel bar out of the wall, or slinging a backpack over his shoulder and breakig a window, or you now.... haing an accident that causes damage.

I guess you don't require your son to have health insurance or car insurance, right? Because its impossible that he'd wreck a car or get sick or injured.

You, sir, are a jackass.

[Anonymous]

I just want to know what kind of lawyers your BILs are where they can come up with an enforceable lease for something that isn’t a legal rental?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to know what kind of lawyers your BILs are where they can come up with an enforceable lease for something that isn’t a legal rental?

Somebody already answered. Sleeping quarters aren't addressed in a lease. The home is rented and the tenants occupy as they see fit. Now, if the BILs were trying to lease just the bunkroom as a home they might run into trouble but thats not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to know what kind of lawyers your BILs are where they can come up with an enforceable lease for something that isn’t a legal rental?

Somebody already answered. Sleeping quarters aren't addressed in a lease. The home is rented and the tenants occupy as they see fit. Now, if the BILs were trying to lease just the bunkroom as a home they might run into trouble but thats not the case.

So no problem. The kid signs the lease, then lives in a bedroom. OP can f@ck off when she tries to make him live in the shed. She's insane anyway, she ought to be living there.